Regarding the sighting reported by Eskin Kuhn (two pterosaurs flying in Cuba in 1971), according to one blog writer, “The claim is a hoax. I no longer have the patience for dealing with creationist-related debunkings and I have no intention of actually writing up one for this topic.” But read the whole blog entry (it’s short) and you’ll find not a milligram of evidence for any hoax. It seems to be just another case of a critic ridiculing a concept because it is supported by persons who have the label “creationist.”
I have interviewed Eskin Kuhn (early 2010) by surprising him with a phone call; he had no time to prepare how to respond. The first thing he said to me was something like, “It was a long time ago.” He confirmed that the desciption he gave of the two apparent pterosaurs was an honest report of what he had seen; in early 2010 he had nothing to add, subtract, or change. I was moved by the high credibility of this man who has, since his 1971 sighting, been doubted by some critics. But I found strong indications that there was no hoax.
Let us recognize that much ridicule against living-pterosaur investigations has, at its root, a controversay regarding origin philosophies. Those who ridicule the researchers and interviewers often do so because they have adopted a different life-origin paradigm, very unlike that of creationists.
###
More about the pterosaur sighting by Eskin Kuhn
Compare the pterosaur sketches by Kuhn and Tullock
I don’t usually pubicize the web sites of those who ridicule investigators of living pterosaur eyewitness reports. I make no exception with this critic, whose web page (a blog) can be found through a Google search on “Eskin Kuhn pterosaur” (without any quote marks).
I have found that the eyewitnesses themselves are not, as a whole, promoters of creationism. They have various religious beliefs, as do typical members of human populations in general. An eyewitness of a modern living pterosaur is typically simply at the place, at the right time, looking in the right direction.
The arrogance of the critics is obvious; only they are to be believed. Eyewitness accounts are of little concern when they do not conform to their preconceived notions. Let’s not forget that these critics often couple “creationists” with a “flat earth” as if it were something taught by the Bible. They are completely ignorant to the fact that the Bible refers to the earth as “hanging upon nothing” and that God “dwells above the CIRCLE of the earth”. This was long before Galileo came along. Scientific conclusions have to be re-adjusted, almost daily, to keep up with new data. The Bible does not. The only time it diverges from scientific conclusions is when they are based on erroneous assumptions. For instance; the great ages attributed to the layers of strata. The evidence coming in now reveals that these were laid down in days, hours, even minutes. Just that changes everything. Textbooks must be completely rewritten.
Does it stand to reason that the Japanese goverment and their scientsts were so inept as to mis-identify a rotting basking shark as being a plesiasaur? The resident scientist on the ship, who studied this thing first hand, knew what he saw. Are we so foolish as to believe that a sceptical Western scientist, who looked at a photograph and pronounced it to be a basking shark, is more credible? Come on.